Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physicsmjcrescimanno.people.ysu.edu/tamoc/2014/TAMOC.2014.pdf ·...
Transcript of Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physicsmjcrescimanno.people.ysu.edu/tamoc/2014/TAMOC.2014.pdf ·...
Atomic, Molecularand Optical Physics
Program Directors
John GillaspyAMO Experiments
Ann OrelAMO Theory, Quantum Informa9on Science (QIS)
TAMOC June 2, 2014
AMO Experiments $15.67M
Atomic and Molecular Dynamics, $6.95M, 54 awardsOp9cal Physics, $3.46 M, 32 awardsPrecision Measurements, $3.93M, 22 awardsAtomic and Molecular Structure, $1.33 M, 11 awards
AMO theory $4.1M
QIS $4.1M
$4.1M, 37 awards 17 experiments, 18 theory, 2 Centers (1 full, 1 par9al support)
$4.1M, 57 awardsMinus ITAMP, $3.5M, 55 awards (~$65k average)
AMO Physics at NSFFY13 ($23.87M)
Amou
nt (M
illions)*
Fiscal Year
*(Constant 2012$)
NSF Funding History
ARRA
Amou
nt (M
illions)*
Fiscal Year
*(Constant 2012$)
NSF Funding History
1999 2004
1985 1995
ARRA
General Funding Trends
hXp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/budget/news/2014/04/09/87506/ryan-‐budget-‐abandons-‐innova9on-‐future/
FY 2015 Budget RequestNSF Budget by Appropria9on
($ in millions)
(* Denotes < $ 0.5 M)
Amou
nt (M
illions)
FY12
AST CHE
$ 1309 MFY 2012 – 4.5%
FY13
DMR DMS PHY
$ 1250 MFY 2013
MPS Budgets
Amou
nt (M
illions)
FY12
AST CHE
$ 1309 MFY 2012 – 4.5% +4.0%
FY13
FY14
DMR DMS PHY
$ 1250 MFY 2013 $ 1300 M
FY 2014
(esZmate)
MPS Budgets
Amou
nt (M
illions)
FY12
AST CHE
$ 1309 MFY 2012 – 4.5% +4.0%
FY13
FY14
DMR DMS PHY
$ 1250 MFY 2013 -‐0.3%
$ 1296 M(request)
FY 2015
FY15
$ 1300 MFY 2014
(esZmate)
1.6% 3.6%2.4%
5.2%
2.8%
vs. FY13
MPS Budgets
Amount PercentAstronomical Sciences (AST) $232.17 $239.06 $236.24 -$2.82 -1.2%Chemistry (CHE) 229.39 235.79 237.23 1.44 0.6%Materials Research (DMR) 291.09 298.01 298.99 0.98 0.3%Mathematical Sciences (DMS) 219.02 225.64 224.40 -1.24 -0.5%Physics (PHY) 250.45 266.30 263.70 -2.60 -1.0%Office of Multidisciplinary Activities (OMA) 27.22 35.00 35.00 - -
Total, MPS $1,249.34 $1,299.80 $1,295.56 -$4.24 -0.3%Totals may not add due to rounding.
MPS Funding(Dollars in Millions)
FY 2013Actual
FY 2014 Estimate
FY 2015 Request
Change OverFY 2014 Estimate
FY 2015 MPS Budget Request to Congress
Physics Division Request for FY 2015 is $263.7 M
Approximately 2% for Opera9ons -‐ Panels, IPA Appointments, IPA Travel, M&S
Approximately 32% for M&O for Facili9es – ATLAS and CMS, IceCube, LIGO, NSCL
Approximately 8% for Physics Fron9ers Centers – Compe99on Underway
Approximately 3% for Educa9on and Broadening Par9cipa9on –REU Sites, LIGO Educa9on Center, QuarkNet
Leaves 55% ($145 M) to Cover Five Major Areas of Physics –Experimental and Theore9cal
Theory Funding vs Time
AMO Exp Funding vs Time
Computa9onal Physics Program (also CDS&E and PIF)
Small Program, focus on disciplines in the purview of the Physics Division
GOAL: Support development of computa9onal methods that will enablesignificant scien9fic progress
Inclusive, not prescrip9ve, BUT simply large-‐scale simula9ons do not belong here!
Focus on SCIENCE
We recognize there will be significant effort dedicated to code development
However, we expect SCIENCE output by the end of the award, report results for renewal
High expecta9on of publica9ons: code is not a deliverable
Note: Panel is mul9-‐disciplinary: it is important to ar9culate the physics impact
Renewals are welcome, but we want PIs to make a decision in a few cycles:-‐Return to Core Program to pursue the science-‐Pursue community building ac9vi9es through the CISE/ACI SI2 program
SI2 has three 9ers: SSE, SSI, Ins9tutes (please refer to Si2 webpage for details)
Solicita9on for a Theory Ins9tute in Atomic, Molecular and Op9calPhysics
•Planned deadline December 8, 2014•Budget Range– 500K-‐1M/year for five years, possible renewal foranother five
– $$ amount depends on proposal and budget
•Possible results -‐ none of the above• Community decides on need• $$’s come out of core TAMOP/QIS• $$’s remain in programs
Issues for Proposals
•Deadline NOT target date star9ng this year
•Compliance checking
•Abstracts• Non-‐technical• Technical
•Reviewer sugges9ons
•ResubmiXals
Ques9ons for the community•Should centers (not PFCs, but small centers) be funded overmore single inves9gator grants?
•What is PHY vs DMR?• AMO vs Condensed maXer
•Diversity vs Concentra9on• Should mul9ple grant submissions be allowed ordiscouraged
• Should well-‐funded groups con9nue to get more NSFfunding, which tends to concentrate grants at centers
•Size vs Number• As budget remain flat – which means drop in terms of $$’s– should we fund at a lower level or cut the number ofgrants